Sharks vs Bulls: Reinach Try

Myburgher

New member
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
1
Post Likes
0
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
SANZAR has just annunced that the Reinach try on Saturday should not have been awarded (video is there): http://www.supersport.com/rugby/super-rugby/news/140217/Reinach_try_was_wrong_Sanzar

Firstly, the TMO mentioned he could not see anything clear and obvious.

Now, there are two issues here: playing the player in the air and a knock on from the Sharks. I am unsure about the interference call (I would probably have called it, but clear and obvious gets me thinking), but I dispute that it actually was a knock on. Here is why:

DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Bresler never had possession of the ball, so he could not lose it and thus that part of the definition is out. The ball didn't hit him, he hit the ball, so the part of the definition that we are concerned with is the underlined section. Also, the knock on occurs when the ball touches another player, as the Bulls jumper touched it between Bresler and the time it hit the ground. That being said, did the ball then travel forward from Bresler. I think not.

(also please tell me if this is the right thread and if I am posting correctly, as this is my first post)

 

Toby Warren


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
3,431
Post Likes
57
Welcome to the forums, good opening post as well, sadly however the video can't be viewed in my region - will look on youtube see if I can find a better version for us.
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
For me, the only reason that might not have been awarded was if the ball was knocked forward out of the lineout jumper's hands . Forgive me, I'm not familiar with the players concerned. I'm assuming that the opposing jumper was Bresler.

I didn't see anything that made me think the catcher had been interfered with, though his catch and pop was certainly made under pressure. It looked like Bresler knocked the ball out of the catcher's hands. The question then is - did it go forward. It did not look to me as though it did - it looked to travel in pretty much a straight line as the #8 who popped it back to the #9 walked along the line of touch to do so, and flipped the ball above his head.

Clear and obvious knock-on? Not in my book, but I never got anywhere near the good stuff, let alone elite.
 

DrSTU


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
2,782
Post Likes
45
Watched the game on Saturday and immediately thought it was a knock on and was surprised when the try was given. Big momentum shift for the Sharks with that try.
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,491
Solutions
1
Post Likes
450
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Much clearer clip from SA Referees (whose comment will follow in due course):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygh7VmI6ZzQ&list=UUgQXAHdKEU0AA-mx-tGRnxQ

I agree - not clear and obvious knock forward from these camera angles; probably straight up and down. You can see that Black 4's hand moves in an upward direction (if you want to watch his hand), which only reinforces the opinion that the ball may have gone straight up and down..
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I admit watching it the first time in real time, my instant reaction was, the jumper was grabbed/held in the air just before he caught the ball so I thought liable for PK there...and then the attempted swatting back, again to me looked obvious enough that it went up and forward enough to 'look forward' for the ref (if he'd seen it).

I do concede that on replay that it isn't as clear and obvious and so the TMO did not have to rule any other way.
Could the TMO had given advice that the player in the air was grabbed/held? Or was that not in his gambit due to the question he was asked?
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,686
Post Likes
1,772
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I am happy that the ball clearly travels forward at the top of its arc (see slo-mo at 1:07). Also, the Bulls lineout player standing on the ground after the ball is knocked, knocks the ball back with his outside arm.

Also, this snippet from Lyndon Bray (in the OP's linked article) interested me

"The TMO and referees are encouraged to have conversations so that their decisions are clearer to viewers who are listening over the broadcast stream."

Taking a leaf out of RL's book from the RLWC last year?
 
Last edited:

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
This snippet from Lyndon Bray (in the OP's linked article) interested me


"The TMO and referees are encouraged to have conversations so that their decisions are clearer to viewers who are listening over the broadcast stream."

Taking a leaf out of RL's book from the RLWC last year?
I noticed that also ......
It will help viewer education, especially when ' ball leaves the hands ' ... Generally a good thing me thinks. Can u think of many downsides?
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,686
Post Likes
1,772
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I noticed that also ......
It will help viewer education,

so long as no TMO says something like "he's got to let him up"!

especially when ' ball leaves the hands ' ... Generally a good thing me thinks
. Can u think of many downsides?

Not at all.

How can making sure that everybody understands referees decisions be a bad thing. Its one of the things I like about the way things are done in NFL.....


NOTE: Have a listen to what the commentator says from about 1:34. Methinks someone's been listening to St Nigel !!
 
Top